Slashdot Mirror
Apple Rejects iPhone App As Competitive To iTunes
DaveyJJ sends news of yet another rejection of an iPhone app by Apple, with perhaps a chilling twist for potential developers of productivity or utility apps. John Gruber of Daring Fireball writes: "Let's be clear: forbidding 'duplication of functionality' is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better." Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform. And Dave Weiner argues that the iPhone isn't a "platform" at all: "The idea that it's a platform should mean no individual or company has the power to turn you off."
``Paul Kafasis (co-founder of Rogue Amoeba Software) makes the point that this action by Apple will scare talented developers away from the iPhone platform.''
I hope it will, but I doubt it. I hope the talented developers will favor open platforms over closed ones, help create and improve open platforms, and help making the world more open.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The last comment clearly has it right. The iPhone is not a platform, it's Apple's toy that you're allowed to use. Is anybody really surprised?
You're never going to be allowed to use alternative hardware, obviously, and with the subscription status and deals with phone companies, you're going to be seriously restricted when it comes to software. How long did it take them to allow any third party programs on their phone?
I hope this trend ends soon. The screening of apps started not long ago and I think was a result of the amount of crap that Apple allowed to sell on the store. Between the numerous "flash light" apps and the infamous "I am Rich" app a lot of people were annoyed at the signal to noise ratio. Then there was "Netshare" which was pulled because it violated ATTs terms of service (luckily I got my copy early.)
My guess is that Apple responded to all this by making it some middle manager's responsibility to come up with a set of ground rules to "improve" the situation. He/she/the committe or whatever obviously went way overboard. As a potential iPhone developer it gives me the chills that you could spend months on a project just to have it rejected for a rediculous reason like the one here.
Apple has created an embedded device and is choosing to tightly control the available applications for it. If you think this is a bad thing, don't develop for it and don't buy an iphone, it's that simple. Things like the gameboy and xbox live tightly control the available content, and I don't see nearly as much bitching about them as I do about the iphone. People jailbreak/develop home brew apps for the devices and don't expect to be embraced by the hardware creators. If you want to develop for an open platform develop for the PC or another device which actually wants and maintains good relationships with independent developers.
Because it costs a lot
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
You can. The problem is that if you want to make money, selling iPhone apps is the way to go, not selling Symbian Apps. At this time there are far more Symbian smartphones out there than iPhones. But for the most part owners don't buy any software that doesn't come with the device.
Apple have made it so easy to purchase applications that lots of people do.
Oh, and I spend years writing Symbian software. The iPhone SDK and tools are about 100 times nicer and faster to work with.
Where is the integrity in a developer knowingly creating an application to do something a product already does? You mean to tell me that in the marketplace of ideas that developers are so bereft of creativity that they cannot think of something unique?
You're either not serious, or out of your mind.
Are you seriously trying to say that a developer should never develop an application that does something another application already does? Even if it does that something much better than the original?
In that case, we don't need Firefox or Opera because we have Safari; we don't need Adium because we have iChat; we don't need VLC because we have Quicktime.
Screw competition! Right?
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Fuck 'em. There's competition licking at their heals, and short of the semi-retarded Apple fanbois, folks will go to the competition, and leave the mental midgets that dream of giving blow Jobs, Apple will be fucked.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A boycott of the iPhone Apple Design Awards would undoubtedly send a message to Apple, but I doubt it could be pulled off. Those awards are coveted; it's such a big temptation for developers that they won't miss out on it just for a stand on principles.
If that be the case, then what they have are not principles at all.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Right from day 1, Bill Gates knows that it's 3rd party developers who make his OS successful. That's why Ballmer goes around shouting "developers, developers".
... but a "walled garden with land mines." Speaking as a developer, with Apple's terms of service, you not only can't see the land mines in the garden, but you can't even see the walls.
Speaking as a developer, it won't be possible to treat the iPhone as a viable platform for building and running a business until Apple comes clean with its real terms of service and requirements. Right now you have no idea if the app you're working on will ever be allowed to see the light of day.
It's reminiscent of what's happened with eBay over the last few years. Literally thousands of people quit their day jobs to build their businesses around eBay, and now they're finding themselves elbowed aside. eBay altered their deal, and all a small-time seller can do is pray that they don't alter it further. Right now, iPhone developers are in the exact same boat: completely at the mercy of a company whose interests are only coincidentally aligned with the "sharecroppers" who bring the real value to the table.